Wilf said -- and I quote but have added Notes
For example, staff planning cycles are now longer (1), convoy speeds are the same (2), as 1944. Today a UK Formation HQ can move once in 24 hours (3). In 1944 they moved once every few hours and could command on the move. IIRC OIF daily rates of advance were not that much greater than in some WW2 operations (4).
All true; (1) Because the staffs are now too big and, if they emulate the US, place emphasis on form over function; (2) That depends on many thing but, while true in most cases need not affect many operations; (3) Size, again, form over function again, adding excessive caution and a series of things that cause us us not to push people nowadays (that may or may nor go in a real war); (4) True, some as you say -- but that's comparing one aberration to some others. All still ignoring the point; which you do address here:
"...I really worry about current military agendas, and the lack of rigour that those agendas are subject too. I guess we share the same concern.
I think so; in my case lack of rigor AND lack of effort bred by excessive caution and concern for the status quo -- and, yes, unknowledgable political interference.

Tom should also note that last quoted comment of yours because I think it applies as well to his response:
"...not saying it does not bother me. It does. What really bothers me is that we get so wrapped up in stacking angels on the head of a pin, the devil jabs us in the ass. By that I mean simply that regardless of "side", adherence to a theorectical framework or opposition to that theoretical framework becomes more important than really applying anything to reality until circumstances force us to do so. (emphasis add / kw)
Which was and is my whole point

Could it be that you two got wrapped up in stacking angels on the head of a pin...

The issue is that elements of warfighting have changed in well envisioned and well documented ways, that we now have 'professional' forces which should be more, not less adadptable and yet we're still operating based on doctrine and techniques predicated large conscripted World War I and II Armies where mass was a key enabler on a forced linear battlefield (in many locations and in general, no universally by far).

We do not have that mass today and linearity now tends to be localized and far from theater or large command wide.

We need to adapt and our failure to do so prior to the need (and an urgent need at that) to do that is not wise.

Seriously, don't think we're in disagreement, simply a matter of differing focus / focusses / focii. Or my poor ability in expressing my aims in writing